On Thu, 29 May 2008 13:15:25 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
<PF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>"default" <default@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:1211903945_3254@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> On Mon, 26 May 2008 09:13:22 -0400, "Pastor Frank"
>> <PF@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>> You only know those things to be good in comparison with what you
>>>consider not good, or bad. You just cannot know wet unless you know dry
>>>also
>>>etc. etc. All qualities have this parameter. Christ calls upon us to be
>>>good, no matter what, even unto death if need be, and never to sell out
to
>>>evil.
>>
>> Maybe you should cut to the chase with this. Presumably you have an
>> agenda or point to make and this is a side excursion that sup****ts
>> your agenda or point?
>> If you had only good and no evil, you would still have "good," but you
>> wouldn't have a word for good or evil in your vocabulary.
>> Happens in isolated tribes - a do***ented case awhile back - island
>> nation had no words for lie or truth, since they never lied. The
>> concept of deliberately telling something that wasn't so, was outside
>> of their experience so they lacked the vocabulary to describe it.
>> So yes good may exist (and "good" is a subjective quality - it is
>> something we add to describe our preferences - doesn't make something
>> intrinsically good or bad) without evil.
>> Does a tree falling in the forest make a sound? If you define sound
>> as the "perceived" high frequency vibrations in air it doesn't. If
>> sound is defined as vibrations in air it does.
>> Without knowing where you are headed with this - you're already on
>> shaky ground - good and evil are subjective. Suns go nova all the
>> time, it is neither good nor bad. Good if you are an astronomer
>> studying stars, bad if you live on a planet by such a star -
>> intrinsically neither good nor bad.
>> --
> You talk like one who thinks good and evil actions are scientifically
>quantifiable.
I have no earthly idea how you got that from my writing. What I did
say was the terms good and bad are highly subjective - they are
opinions only. What is good for one person may not be bad for
another.
Cost of oil? Bad for 300 million people in the US good for ~10,000.
Gay marriage? bad for 150 million people, good for 30 millions.
Stem cell research? good for 300 million and bad for a few million
Serial homicide?
Sunlight? Rain?
All subjective - not scientifically quantifiable.
>Christ came to to establish the standards for good and evil
>His followers are to adhere to. If you prefer other standards, then by
all
>means elucidate, reference and compare them to those of Christ, so we all
>can learn.
I practice/live what some may call a Christian philosophy. Was there
a person named Christ? Probably. Did he do and say what is
attributed to him? Very questionable. Did he perform miracles?
Highly unlikely. Was he a/the deity? No.
> Most atheists only trash Christ's standards, but wisely refrain from
>advocating any other. This is very thoughtful of them, for it would cause
us
>to suffer no end of apoplectic laughing fit seizures.
Christ's standards? Christ said nothing that hadn't already been said
long before him. Philosophers have likely been ha****ng this sort of
thing out since before historical records - certainly after historical
records.
All the Christ philosophy did was revamp the old testament and update
God's public relations - no smiting, no hissy fits, less temper
tantrums - there is really no way to rationalize the old and new
testaments as being somehow the same basic religion.
We can only wonder - there's been far too many politicians cherry
picking the old historical records.
--
----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.pronews.com
The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
|
